In an effort to make irrigation more efficient  to obtain more crop per drop  farmers have adopted alternatives to flooding and other conventional methods. Among these is drip irrigation, shown above, in which water flows only to the roots. Drip systems are costly, but they save much water.

Or do they? A hydrologic and economic analysis of the Upper Rio Grande basin in the Southwest, published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that subsidies and other policies that encourage conservation methods like drip irrigation can actually increase water consumption.

The take-home message is that youd better take a pretty careful look at drip irrigation before you spend a bunch of money on subsidizing it, said Frank A. Ward, a resource economist at New Mexico State University and author of the study with Manuel Pulido-Velázquez of the Polytechnic University of Valencia in Spain.

With flood irrigation, much of the water is not used by the plants and seeps back to the source, an aquifer or a river. Drip irrigation draws less water, but almost all of it is taken up by the plants, so very little is returned. Those aquifers are not going to get recharged, Dr. Ward said.

Drip irrigation also generally increases crop yields, which encourages farmers to expand acreage and request the right to take even more water, thus depleting even more of it. The indirect effect is very possibly to undermine policy attempts to reduce water consumption, Dr. Ward said.

Policymakers, he added, must balance the need for more food and for farmers to make a living with water needs.

Now that I have said that, let me say that if the government would remove most of the restrictions on Nuclear power plants, we could build a series of small ones, such as are used in Naval vessels, anchor them securely along the coast and use them for water desalinization. If the greenies really had mankind's and the planet's welfare at heart they would be looking at things like that. With Nuke desalinization we would never need to worry about water and drought again.

The point is the left doesn't really care about the planet or the people on it, except for how they can control them. Restrictions are placed on us to control us and for no other reason. We need to start pushing back, hard.

Reducing the amount of treated drinking water that it takes for three hundred million people to flush their toilets and at the same time reducing the same amount of sewage water that has to be treated and cleaned is a great benefit. It may have had a benefit, for those paying for the operation and maintenance of their sewage system. Maybe not. If it made more sense for them to buy an "old-tech" toilet using more gpf, then so be it. If it became prohibitively expensive to provide the required amount of properly treated water to supply all those older toilets, people would voluntarily opt for the newer models. This was never a government issue.

Using up to seven gallons to flush a toilet just isnt necessary, Taking 15 minutes in the shower isn't necessary, either. Do you have a proposal to address this issue?

With flood irrigation, much of the water is not used by the plants and seeps back to the source, an aquifer or a river. Drip irrigation draws less water, but almost all of it is taken up by the plants, so very little is returned. Those aquifers are not going to get recharged, Dr. Ward said.

This is just loony, circular logic. They note that drip irrigation fails to recharge the source while FAILING to note that it draws less water from the source to begin with! The article lost me right here. If the author or the study can't handle this simple concept, I have no faith in the rest of the work.

This is the kind of backward thinking that makes people want to spend money so they can get more back from their 5% reward. Yes, but you spent the 95%, idiot.

With flood irrigation, much of the water is not used by the plants and seeps back to the source, an aquifer or a river. Drip irrigation draws less water, but almost all of it is taken up by the plants, so very little is returned. Those aquifers are not going to get recharged, Dr. Ward said.

You're right DB about the increased yeilds with less water - who would object to that?

But what do you think about the "water not used by plants seeps" back into the aquifer? I mean, if it's not taken out in the first place, purified, transported etc., what's the problem with excess water not "seeping" back in? This is soooooo New York Times - they've probably never been closer to a farm than flying over one...

48
posted on 11/24/2008 7:40:26 PM PST
by GOPJ
(The CITI/ financial dike has sprung 500 leaks - we need an engineer - not more fingers.)

I imagine this author would have been ecstatic with an irrigation system that returns 100% of the drawn water back to the aquifer, with the hope that the water wishes the plants good fortune as it runs by the roots in nearby piping.

If you are having problems with low flow toilets I strongly recommend Toto brand toilets. We built a new home a couple of years ago and used Toto toilets throughout and have had zero problems whatsoever. In our old house we had nothing but problems with poor flushing low flow toilets. Constantly clogged... In that house we had to have a plunger next to each toilet at all times. I don’t even know where all the plungers are in the new house... They don’t get used anymore...

Stressing resources and infrastructure for no reason is ridiculous, Sure it is, as is buying a car that gets 8 mpg. Who are we to say citizens don't have the right to make ridiculous decisions, so long as they are paying for them? Using your Babs example, if she's paying $2000/month (of her own money) for her water what do you care what she does with it? Unless you have reason to believe that her waste is subsidized by you as a taxpayer, what difference does it make to you?

All of these arguments could just as easily be applied to electricity and gasoline supplies, and the answer would be the same. Don't you agree?

but the government does justifiably put limits on the weight that you put on the roads. This is a limit on individual vehicles due to the disproportionate amount of damage that a single heavy vehicle can do to the roads. If individual flushes put a similar strain on the sewer system, you'd have a point. They don't. The reason for it was to lower the overall amount of water being pushed through the system. If a municipal system is strained by increasing demands forcing infrastructure improvements, the price/gallon of water should reflect these costs.

The fact that government has imposed itself into areas where it does not belong does not make it right.

“If individual flushes put a similar strain on the sewer system, you’d have a point. “

They do, by reducing the amount of water that has to be imported and the amount of waste water that has to be treated, it all helps preserve the infrastructure.

There are reasons why pipes (like roads) have to be replaced and that includes the use they receive, but a treatment plant for instance can really benefit from a sizable reduction of unnecessary input.

As a plumbing contractor I am well aware of how fascinated people are with their toilets, but are you aware that your refrigerator is much more regulated than your toilet? How about your stereo, or your TV, or your furnace, all manufactured to strict government electricity usage standards, electricity use is more of an issue with the government than water.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.